|
We are going into war!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :( (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Izzy |
evil_bastard, its great to get someone in hear with at least a clear head who's willing to use rational, fact based logic and has some clue as of whats going on, we dont have to agree but at least i can tell you have an open mind.
now i dont have time to post a long post... so let me get to one of the things you said which i most strongly disagree with, maybe you can be clearer on the reason for this ideal of yours
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_bastard
Aaah yes, I was waiting for this one. The "you're either with us or against us" argument. An awesomely pathetic attempt to make anyone left wing look like a terrorist and demonise their views. It's a classic, cracks me up every time.
I'm not taking any sides. I feel inclined to copy and paste this comment, because some people find it so hard to grasp. Just because I'm not so pro-Israeli that I worship the US flag, it doesn't make me a terrorist, it doesn't mean I share the views of terrorists, and it doesn't make me a psychopath!
|
yes i believe it is as clear cut as, you're either with us or agianst. i feel that humanity has a moral obligation to stand up agiants travesties such as the definition of terrorism, its black and white. it is just as bad if not worse to have the hands off approach and take no side at all.
in examples such as the genocides in rwanda, cambodia and the holocaust of the jews, it was a stain on all of man kind for not taking proper action to not let this happen. so excuse me for thinking that the targeting of innocent civilians just because they are israelis is not only terrorism but genocide - and if you want proof just look at some of the charters within organiztions in the palestian controlled areas. action must be taken on simple black and white terms, no ifs ands or buts. i myself am not willing to talk about solutions to terrorism by having dialog with them or even comtemplating the cause of it. it should be a clear cut ultimatum that nothing shall be done or discussed until inhumanties such as these cease. this is where i find israel to hold the higher moral ground over the palestians.
terrorism is never ever a just way of conducting politics. |
|
|
| Inspector_Morse |
What about someone who does not support, say, a war against Iraq? On such an issue they're not "with" America, but it's a little unfair to say they are "against" them. What does it mean to be "against"? This is seldom made clear. If I don't support America's decision to go to war, am I "against" them in so far as I oppose said war, or am I against them to the extent that I'd be willing to attack them myself? The fact that this is willingly left open to interpretation by ambivalent politicians is something which I find insulting to my humanity.
The creation of such dichotomies is hardly conducive to open, rational debate. Neither is it fair for those who, quite understandably, question whether it's wise to send troops to risk their lives to be branded "wobblers".
I completely agree that terrorism is an unjust way of conducting politics. The trouble is, many states are terrorist by the accepted definition, and a blind eye is turned to this daily. I agree with what your sentiment appears to be in denouncing a defiinition of terrorism as a travesty, that the idea of tightly defining terrorism is somewhat semantic, but it would surely be a worrying state of affairs if such a definition did not exist. If that were the case, we might find the Bush administration branding any action it felt like taking as essential for the war on terrorism, while democratic governments might find themselves selling arms to regimes which practice state terrorism. Which would be a shame.
I have to go now, as I'm sure I've bored you enough, and I have to spread the news that the Queen Mum is dead. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Inspector_Morse
What about someone who does not support, say, a war against Iraq? On such an issue they're not "with" America, but it's a little unfair to say they are "against" them. What does it mean to be "against"? This is seldom made clear. If I don't support America's decision to go to war, am I "against" them in so far as I oppose said war, or am I against them to the extent that I'd be willing to attack them myself? The fact that this is willingly left open to interpretation by ambivalent politicians is something which I find insulting to my humanity.
The creation of such dichotomies is hardly conducive to open, rational debate. Neither is it fair for those who, quite understandably, question whether it's wise to send troops to risk their lives to be branded "wobblers".
I completely agree that terrorism is an unjust way of conducting politics. The trouble is, many states are terrorist by the accepted definition, and a blind eye is turned to this daily. I agree with what your sentiment appears to be in denouncing a defiinition of terrorism as a travesty, that the idea of tightly defining terrorism is somewhat semantic, but it would surely be a worrying state of affairs if such a definition did not exist. If that were the case, we might find the Bush administration branding any action it felt like taking as essential for the war on terrorism, while democratic governments might find themselves selling arms to regimes which practice state terrorism. Which would be a shame. |
you are getting into solutions to such acts... it is perfectly fine here to disagree, after all in a democratic society we are free to voice our opinions. not agreeing to a specific action in iraq, for example, does not make you a bad person. all im asking for is that you agree in priniciple to that fact that the iraqi government is "evil" (childish term, but i hope you see what im trying to say) and that something should be done. not take a hands off approach, that is saying you are content that these travesties are happening. same goes for the palestian authority, im am not argueing over what should be done but rather get you to understand that there is in a black in white sense (in context to the palestian - israeli turmoil) an obvious evil side and according to that the israeli side is perfectly justified in their actions to it (after all they freely elected a government that would act in this particular way - the will of the people).
| quote: |
I have to go now, as I'm sure I've bored you enough, and I have to spread the news that the Queen Mum is dead.
|
my condolinces to all of you in the UK for you loss today.
and no you havent bored me, i enjoy these debates and you seem like a fine 'bloke' :p to me |
|
|
| davinox |
one thing...who gives a fu*k about what the CITIZENS think?
"Oh...most Palestinians want peace..."
Who cares? Wars are about big politicians sending in big troops, not people's worries! Do you think most Americans ASKED to go into Vietnam?
As long as Palestine is going to attack Israel, Israel is going to attack Palestine.
If Palestine does not attack Israel, Israel will not attack Palestine. (this is because Israel's attacks are based on a "you hit me i'll hit you back" policy)
If Israel does not attack Palestine, Palestine will STILL attack Israel. (this is based on a "Destroy Israel" policy)
The sides are not even. |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
I don't think we should take sides when the only sides in this conflict are two sides employing childish politics.
This might not be the best analogy, but if two men are fighting in the street over a trivial matter, and both men should really grow up and shake hands, is it iessential to take sides, even when you know both men are losing their temper over nothing and things have gotten out of hand?
Would it be fair, for example, to give a knife to the bigger man? Then the smaller man gets his friends involved. The bigger man takes a knife to him, so his friends beat up the bigger man's family.
Both sides committing disgusting acts of violence.
This is a pretty bad analogy but I hope it has demonstrated my point.
Taking a side is not always the admirable option. The Allies, the 'great heros of World War Two' who 'saved the world', Allied with a man who murdered 20 million of his own people, a man who murdered a town of innocent people during his days as a soldier, a man who sent another 20 million people to starve, freeze, be shot, or be captured, in bitter winter fighting. He was the biggest mass murderer ever.
The motives of politicians are seldom sincere. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but history would suggest this is the case, the alliance with Stalin being an example. There is far too often a hidden agenda.
To try and seek the real motive of either side, we need to take a step back and see who has what to gain by doing what.
In my eyes, the Israelis have more to gain by prolonging this conflict than the Palestinians. 1/3 of all US foreign aid goes to Israel. Israel makes up 0.01% of the world's population, and there are hundreds of countries facing absolute poverty who could really do with that money. In short, Israel are less likely to recieve such massive sums of money if peace is reached. In fact, it peace was reached and Palestine became civilised, I could see more of that US aid going into Palestinian hands, to repair the damage.
I think only a moron could suggest the Palestinian suicide bombers are acting in self interest. They're blowing themselves up. I think their actions are driven solely by emotion, rather than greed. How can a man who kills himself be doing it out of greed? Given that the Israeli Defence Force has littered much of the West Bank with bullets and killed god knows how many Palestinian people, many (possibly most?) of them innocents, I can see why these people become so outraged at the Israelis that they get the urge to retaliate.
By no means are the actions of suicide bombers morally justified, but they will happen so long as the Israelis kill Palestinians (which they do on almost a daily basis). |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: |
Nice try, but you don't get out that easily.
You make statements, you have to back them up. I can back mine up, and will readily do so if you want. Shall I?
|
To bad. I would have liked to see those facts. I make statements, and yes I back them up. If you would like to see all my statements with their supporting 'back-up' visit the old thread about this discussion:[/QUOTE]http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...15&pagenumber=2
Be prepared though to spend a few hours reading through the stuff. All the proof and support you need is there. Proving myself once I do not feel the urge to waste my effort again on explaining every single point, if you would like me to.. read through the thread and point out something I have not backed up. I would be more then glad to, to do this.
Secondly, I will congratulate you on at least giving me a challenge in a respectable fashion, this is an odd and welcome change from the usual.
| quote: | | It's quite cheeky to tell someone to get their facts straight, and then refuse to prove your own. |
Again, my statements are proven by the above source, can you locate me to such a source in kind?
| quote: | | The burden of proof lies on you, the one who claims he bares the facts. I can prove those police stations were destroyed by Israeli forces, so I DO have my facts right. |
Excuse me for critizing your genius by stating a fact that I do not disagree against out of context. Yes the Israelis destroyed these police stations. But you must then look at both sides and say that these stations housed terrorist and weapons stashes, helped execute and plan terrorist operations, and if not that then at least did nothing to stop terrorist from operating in their juristiction - their direct responsability. I do not, but I would rather have Israel respond to those responable then to innocent civilians.
| quote: | | Israeli forces blew up a series of Palestinian police stations in retaliation to the killing of 2 Israeli soldiers. They have done this on several occasions. |
Again, so what? This is good, they are stopping bases of terrorism from operating. You are against terrorism, you should be for such acts. Furthermore if this is not the case, and as you argue you are for the Palestinian people, this is indeed good for them. This allows them to uprise against their oppressive ruler and change a system of government which acurately repersents their desire for peace (as you clearly believe the majority of them have). Can you explain perhaps why they have failed to do this? You have a bad Palestinian government (or are you going to argue that Arafat is a wise, benevolent dictator?) supported by fear, and police, remove the police, the people can uprise without fear.
| quote: | | That is a fact, and I can prove it. |
Don't trouble yourself.. try and prove how Arafat an't a terrorist or one who has violate the three principles state in my former post. He should be removed.
| quote: | | I'm not taking any sides |
Not taking sides is as bas as taking the wrong side sometime. Look at WWII for example, or WWI... History is full of examples. It is a deprevation of humanity if you witness genoicide and mass murder and say 'Oh I am not taking sides', as had clearly happened in WWII.
| quote: | | I've followed it closely enough, and no my views are not corrupted by living so close to the scene. Sometimes when you're stuck in a clique only those outside can really see the problems. |
Good we have something in common, as I do not live close to the scene as well.
| quote: | | It's pointless making me out to be some sort of extremist for saying "what goes around comes around". In fact you'll find it in the back of any dictionary under the "proverbs" section. |
Again, I don't know how my previous statments went beyond you. And according to some remarks below, you do not believe in this philosophy either. It is a nice proverb, but it is not a truth 100%.. I don't know why you argue this. It is not 'Israel Bombs', 'Terrorist Bombs'.. It is Israel launches surgical military operation against terrorist, terrorist launch monsterous terrorist attacks against innocent civillians. Israel is not launching terrorist attacks against innocent civilians against the Palestinians, I fail to see how what goes around comes around. I don't know when you will grow up from this theory.. It does not take two to make a war.
| quote: | | If you bomb terrorists they will probably try to bomb you back. |
I do not argue this. I argue the proportions and the morality behind such bombings.
But this is why you understand, I do not feel Israel should just 'bomb' terrorist. No! They should go in there like they are now and destory the terrorist. Just like the USA is doing in Afhganistan. Sure perhaps their will be another strike on the USA, but when it will happen it will either be the relics of Al'Queda, or a new terrorist organization harbored in another nations, which the USA will then launch the same stype campagin as Afhganistan. One by one, a country at a time we will be able to rid the world of terrorism.
| quote: | | They say that he who walks around with his eyes closed gets a shock when he bumps into things. |
That is why a blind man carries a big stick.
| quote: | | You're saying it's a fairy tale philosophy to try and commit actions which minimise the backlash. You'd have made an impressive WW1 commander on the Somme, because that's where your views belong. |
Where did this come from?? No I am saying it is a fair tale philosophy to believe that what goes around comes around. If I were to nuke you (say as in WWII Japan), you die and surender.. you do not 'come around'. If you were to smash planes into tall buildings, I would use overwhelming force to destory you - this has worked. Why is Israel's hands-tied behind their back by the international community to responde with detterance (you do believe in this philosophy right?) to those that would terrorize her continously. Israel has never yet dismateled the terrorist regiem, and the terrorist infrastructure. It would be wise to allow them to do it before we can conclude how effective it will be. Especially when it has shown its effectiveness time and time again throughout history.
| quote: | | I think everyone agrees that the Palestinian terrorists need to be stopped, where we disagree is how. I don't agree with appeasing terrorists |
I'm glad you are a moral human who does not agree with terrorism and recongize its inhumanity.
But ok, name your game... what would you do to make it stop??? Israel has tried everything, they are using military might as a last resort. And they have come to the end.
| quote: | | however I do agree with appeasing families whose homes have been bombed. |
Why? They did not fight off the terrorist who would use their houses to stage terrorism against Israel. Why should we appease them if they are in capable of defending their houses? If their houses are destroyed because they let terrorist smuggle weapons threw them, or used them to snipe at Israeli citizens (or military for that matter) then the rules of war are off... but which side broke the rules first? It surely was not the Israelis that had no reason to destory a house unprovoked.
| quote: | | There are innocents caught up in all this on both sides, and from a Palestinian perspective, a lot more civilians are dying than terrorists. |
Right, perhaps then the innocent civilians should uprise against the terrorist and their own draconian dictatorship? Sounds like a good idea to you.. according to you being so peace loving they should have already done this.
I do not argue that there are those indeed that are innocent on the Palestinian side, and it hurst me to see them die. I just do not understand why all the good Palestinians group up together and rise up against their #1 oppresors- their own government (PNA/PLO).
| quote: | | Whether this perspective is true or not doesn't matter, both sides try and manipulate the figures, but what is important is that draconian law enforcement and downright genecide will cause widespread resentment. |
Right, I agree figures are usually useless and do not indicate 'right' or 'wrong'. I agree with you 100% draconian law enforcement and downright genecide causes widespread resentment. From here sprouts Israeli resentment of all Palestinians.
They are clearly targeting Israelis because they are Israelis- furthermore Jewish. Those that carry out the terrorism believe in the erradication of Jews systematically, and often reffer to their 'freedom fight' as finishing the job for hitler. Perhaps you should re-examine more carefully who is trying to systematically destory who, and who is imposing draconian law on who.
| quote: | | Expect to be treated as you treat others. |
Ok, this looks to me like you are making an emotional appeal against the Arabs. I mean I understand they incite hate and would like to systematically erase Israel from the map, but please, I do not think Israel should treat them likewise. Please cool off.
| quote: | | I think you should be careful on your wording here. Conflict has gone on for 60 years, virtually without any consistent peace. |
Please read my history note post in the other thread, the conflict orginiated much earlier then that and was caused primarly to increased Arab migration into the area.. they wanted to drive the Jews out then... looks the same now (read their textbooks if you question this). It is false to say no constant peace either, Israel has signed a peace with both Egypt and Jordan and it has been constant. Furthermore this re-inforces Israel's willingness to have peace and do peace with its neighbors as well as trade land for peace. Israel has proved that it will honor its commitments so long as the other sides does.
| quote: | | Once could argue that many Israeli commanders would like to invade Palestine, and would happily see Palestinian police fail as an excuse for military action. |
No, sorry one could not argue this. Because altought they might want to, it does not mean they can. The Israeli army is subserivant to the will of the government, the government is elected by the people to repersent the people. And tell me, history has never been favorable to 'Coloniest' democracies.. Wars started and declared are very unpopular, wars in self-defense extremly popular. I'll let you think about it and deciede which one this is (check history note again if in doubt.. history shows all Israeli-Arab wars were indeed defensive).
| quote: | | There are some extreme right wingers both in Israei office and in military command. |
Again Army is subserviant to the will of the people, the will of the people chose these 'extreme right wingers'. And please, what extreme right are they? You are comparing with in Israeli politics.. compare these guys to Arab extreme right wingers and they look like pacifists, if you compare them to American 'extreme right wingers' they look extremly dovish... Plus as you will see in the other thread each democracy has its 1% pyschos with free will.
| quote: | | You seem quick to portray this as a "defence of the realm", |
Give it some thought.. it looks that way to me.
| quote: | | but some of the more outspoken military commanders in the I"d"F would rather see the Palestinians "crushed". Who struck the first blow? Well that's a question that goes back 60 years. To assume that everything the Israeli Army does is in self-defence is incredibly naive, espescially given their track record of killing civilians. |
First blow; 1948 Arab declare eradication of Israel and follow it up with invasion attempt.
Second blow; 1967 Arabs try to do 1948 again.
Israeli track record: Extremly impressive in comparision to other wars (look at Afgahnistan perhaps), especially when you consider that the brunt of the war is handled in civilian cities, and that terrorist use civilian shields extensively.
I am fairly sure you are compotent enough to investigate statistics of previous modern wars for yourself and discover the ratios of civilians casualties and contrast it to the current conflict yourself.
| quote: | | It's easy to sit in your little Ivory tower prophesising the truth and only the truth, but this is something half the world disagrees on. But I know you're right, cos you just are. |
So, most the Arab world supports the events of Septermeber 11th. This does not make it right. I am not propehsising the truth, I am stating it... as in what has happened. Not what will happen or might happen..
| quote: | | Who struck the first blow and who is responsible is a debate going on the world over. |
Ok, phew I am glad I can finally bring an end to this global debate. I am sure many people will finally be releaved... it is after all 1948, first blow, the Arabs.
| quote: | | You think the Palestinians are the ones who refuse to throw down their weapons and keep starting the fighting. Millions of people disagree with you. |
Wow, the smart masses.. I never heard of such a thing. I do believe it is the refusal of Palestinians to restrain themselves.. why have they never done it??? Israel has.. they have not. I can spew the facts out here if you don't agree... but again check other thread.
| quote: | | A very "CNN" version of events. The IDF are not the most sympathetic soldiers in the world, and I think burnt down Palestinian homes got missed out of your little summary. |
Look Israel stuck to its cease-fire agreement since March 14th. Passing up many opprotunities to killing terrorist (such as the ones that blew themselves up in Netenyah.. they were on a list given to Arafat to arrest, he did not. If Israel had not agreed to the ceasefire they would have arrested him, or killed him. So please, fill me up on this fact.), however burning down a building or two that were used to launch motors and as sniping positions doesn't seem like that large of a breaking of the agreement as the slaughters in recent day. How can you even compare the burning down of a few buildings.. inanimate objects, that can be rebuilt to human lives... to families that are broken, people who are not living anymore.. you can not so please do not try to, it only insults yourself.
| quote: | | You're dealing with human minds here, not wooden objects. |
So why do the Palestinians go destorying the human minds, when Israel burns down an object or two? Israel does not systematically destory human life, the humiliation and fear, they can pass, road-blocks do not end your life... Suicide bombers do. In addition the Israeli policing would stop when the Palestinians uprise for peace.. not violence for a change.
| quote: | | These people have grivances that go back decades, that go back generations. You might think you can just frighten the life out of them but it doesn't work. |
So do Jews of Israel, but you do not see them blow themselves up in Hebron where they were driven away from, or other ancesotral cities and locations in the Palestinian territories.
You can't frighten people who aren't afraid of death Evil, it is not the strategy of Israel to do this either... give them some more credit then that.. it does not take a genius to know such a strategy will not work, and let me tell you you have a lot of smart tacticians in Israel.. just look at the wars they won.
| quote: | | You say "no retaliation". Once again this is according to CNN reports. |
What do you want to believe, untrustworthy Palestinian sources?
| quote: | | The IDF have killed many civilians, their tactics are reckless. This is debatable, of course, and CNN are pro-Israeli because 1/3 of US foreign aid goes into Israeli Arms. |
Yes the IDF has killed many civilians, the Palestinians have also killed many of their own civilians (remember cross-fire means fire from more then one direction). Civilians should stand up agains terrorism and not let terrorist impose themeseleves onto their lives, schools, and ambulances.
| quote: | | Violence breeds violence. This has been evident in every conflict that has ever existed, and Israel is no exception. |
Right but what you have forgot to mention is that Violence quells Violence as well (this has been existant in every conflict as well). Wars are finished not because of the peace, but because of the violence before the peace. When one declares war on another, the other will inturn declare war on the other (if he is wise), and yes therefore violence breeds violence. However, we can also see that violence quells violence (history shows very good track record here). So in other words duh. Again you do not state where the Violence orginiated, I have..
| quote: | | The Palestinians would say they are "trying to use violence to quell violence". |
But they started the violence, so they can not say that. It is like saying I am going to declare War on you so you can't declare War on me. Doesn't make sense does it?
| quote: | | Who is right. You reckon it is you, millions of people disagree. |
Great, I am the shining beackon of light, thoughtless millions please follow me.
| quote: | | But of course, I live in "fairy land" because my view is not the same as yours. |
Glad you agree.
No seriously, there can only be one history.. if you learn that history you should arrive at the same logical conclusions I have. If your views are based on logic, we can conclude that your history is incorrect.. or a fairy tale as you like.
| quote: | | Personally, I take neither side. It takes two to make an agreement. |
My point exactly, it takes one to wage war.
Not taking a side is as bad as doing nothing. Doing nothing leads to hundreds more of useless death. It is time that Israel is let unrestrained to take care of the problem as She sees fit, after all who would know better of how to deal with the problem then those who the war has been waged upon?
| quote: | | Aaah yes, I was waiting for this one. The "you're either with us or against us" argument. An awesomely pathetic attempt to make anyone left wing look like a terrorist and demonise their views. It's a classic, cracks me up every time. |
Well then you have been waiting for a dumb argument. Since you are either with us or against us, you are either against the good or for the bad. By not taking a stand you are for the bad.
We don't say you can't question the policies.. but if you seriously think that terrorism is not an evil to this world that should go unpunished, then you look pretty demonic to me.
| quote: | | I'm not taking any sides. I feel inclined to copy and paste this comment, because some people find it so hard to grasp. Just because I'm not so pro-Israeli that I worship the US flag, it doesn't make me a terrorist, it doesn't mean I share the views of terrorists, and it doesn't make me a psychopath! |
No you are not a psychopath... but how can you say that you are not against terrorism, and then say you are for tying the Israeli's hands behind their back when they say they want to go deal with it?
| quote: | | You look at the want of the Israeli people, and then the want of Palestinian terrorists! What a comparison! |
No! I look at the GOVERNMENT of the ISRAELI PEOPLE and the GOVERMENT of the PALESTINIAN PEOPLE. Read the Israeli Government charter, read the Palestinian Government charter...
Witness the history of who broke what agreement and did not fulfill the obligation.. it is very, very clear cut.
| quote: | Why not look at the Palestinian majority, I believe it looks a little bit like this:
Israeli population (majority): Peace and Security
Palestinian population (majority): Peace and Security
|
Nice fairy tale. If this were true we would have this by now:
Peace and Security
However the truth is that the Palestinian population has not rebelled against the dictatorship that repersents them, and does so by establishing violence, and not diplomacy and mediation. However, as we can see according to a current Gallop poll (go check gallop for complete statisitc and attitudes) the Palestinians people in an overwhelming majority support TERRORISM and SUICIDE BOMBERS... yea thats a quick way to peace.
| quote: | | You forget to mention that the Palestinian terrorists won't just hand over their guns, and that thousands of innocent civilians will die in the process and the whole middle east, with it's complex politics and close alliances, could be destabilised. Apart from that it's a grand idea. |
We all have to take risks... if this turns into WWIV and we get to turn all the other regiems in the neighborhood and rid them of terrorism too.. ok, it will make things all the more faster in the war to rid the world of terrorsim.
All I can say is that more civilians will die on both sides if the violence continues as such. Putting a drastic end to it, altought the cost might be high in the short run, will but the cost very low in the long run... that of the future. I want my children to live in peace. The Palestinians I would wish the same.. but reading their school books doesn't seem as such :( I can send you a link if you don't believe me that reinterpurts the books from Arabic to English if you'd like to understand.
| quote: | | There are two sides: right wing nutters, and civilians. I take the side of the civilians, the ones who want peace and security. |
So you are pro-Israeli.. So was that so hard to admit? Come on tell me really.. it an't that hard.
| quote: | Your version to the two sides seems to be:
Millions of Good, honest, Israeli people.
Millions of Evil, bad, nasty Palestinian people.
|
No, not the people.. the Nations/Autonomy or Govenments. Palestinian Government Bad - Israeli Government Good.
| quote: | | That's not how I see it. There are some right bastards in Israeli office and in the Israeli military. If you want I shall cite some examples. There are some righ bastards on the Palestinian side too, mostly terrorists. The bastards are the ones wrecking this for both peoples, and they are on BOTH SIDES. |
Save your breath, if you cite extreme Israelis.. I will have to cite extreme Palestinians.. the difference in their comments differes in the nth degree of hatered. Go a head.. we can contrast and compare if you like.
The Israeli people can remove the bastards from office, or elect others.. the Palestinians can rebell against theirs... they haven't.
Yoepus
I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian! |
|
|
| Inspector_Morse |
Vast swathes of this thread are taken up by people trying to show they adhere more closely to academic principles than someone else.
Evil bastard, chill out, man. It seems you're trying to communicate a genuine desire to see an end to killing, an end which isn't facilitated by death and destruction. Don't get stressed, though, and don't get drawn into bitching sessions.
As Izzy seems to feel, it would seem pointless us discussing solutions, unless anyone can cite a precedent for when foreign policy has been influenced by the consensus of subscribers to a trance forum. This may sound defeatist, and yes, it is. Sorry. It just gets frustrating banging your head against a big wall.
The truth, as far as I can make out from the tiny glimpses that come my way, is that the world is a horrible, deceitful, dishonest and dirty place. But if I talked about it, I'd sound like a raving conspiracy theorist. And if I mentioned that this eventuality serves to strengthen the position of those who benefit from how we perceive the world, I'd compound my fate.
I tried to learn my lesson from the Gulf war, when as a child I was swept up in the fervour, only to find out a few years later we'd been fundamentally lied to about a number of things (Patriot missiles anyone?) But it's not easy. The media is always going to be manipulated, often in bland and uninteresting ways. There's only so much time to broadcast news, so things will always be legitimately left out. You can't be sceptical about everything, but you probably should. I just can't help but ask questions about the big issues, since to me they seem too important to just accept an official version. But I try (often unsuccessfully, since such issues are of import) not to get worked up. Often I've found the people whom I would have expected to be the most biased, the most outraged and angry about an event have been the most balanced, calm and understanding when talking about it. Of all the people I've heard talk, on all sides, about Bloody Sunday, among the most reasonable sounding people have been people I know from Derry. Likewise, I once spoke to a rational, understanding former IDF officer who had been put in a wheelchair by a terrorist bomb, and who could genuinely see the grievance of Palestinians, and the futility of much of the carnage. I don't know if such people are a minority, but if they're not going to get worked up about such things, I don't see why I should. Perhaps they realise, possibly better than I ever will, that jumping up and down about the justness of one side's actions serves mainly to condemn others to miseries they themselves have suffered.
By the way, I'm sorry if my comment about the Queen Mum made it sound like I was bothered by it. Personally I was more upset by Kenneth Wolstenholme, but since I knew neither of them, I'd be a fraud if I said I was distraught.
I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain. |
|
|
| DamnDirtyApe |
Simple solution:
Israel withdraws from the occupied territories. I mean truly withdraw, and that means removing the settlers currently trying to 're-Israelize' Palestine.
I certainly don't condone terrorism, but desperate people will do desperate things. It's hardly surprising that so many Palestinians are willing to die for their country, is it? If a foreign power invaded your country and took away your self-determing, would you not also be upset? |
|
|
| rupert |
I was thinking about posting this quote the last time this thread about the Middle_East was doing its rounds but I decided against it because I got flamed so much. Oh well, some people might get some value out of it.
"The action of some of our United States Zionists will eventually prejudice everyone against what they are trying to get done. I fear very much that the jews are like all underdogs, When they get on top they are just as intolerant and as cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath. I regret this situation very much because my sympathy has always been on their side"
That was from a letter from Harry S. Truman to Elanor Roosevelt. |
|
|
| Inspector_Morse |
That would be an unfortunate situation. Let's hope it doesn't happen.
Seriously, though, I hope you don't get flamed for that, it's pertinent, as well as historically interesting. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DamnDirtyApe
Simple solution:
Israel withdraws from the occupied territories. I mean truly withdraw, and that means removing the settlers currently trying to 're-Israelize' Palestine.
I certainly don't condone terrorism, but desperate people will do desperate things. It's hardly surprising that so many Palestinians are willing to die for their country, is it? If a foreign power invaded your country and took away your self-determing, would you not also be upset? |
A simple solution that doesn't work. It was tried. Pre 1967. Israel had no control of the West Bank, Gaza, and parts of Jerusalem and no peace existed. Fomr 1948-1967!! 19 years.. think about it. Secondly many opprotunities were made to reach a political settlement that indicates your plan, most reccently Barak's proposal in Camp David in 2000.
However Israel will never do what you say for the sole reason that this is indeed giving in and surendering to terrorism. This is what the terrorist want, and further more if you give it to them you have no assurances they will stop (indeed those prepertrating terror do not say they want the west bank and gaza, but the whole of Israel). The problem is Israel will not to concede to terrorism by giving the Palestinians political gains when under fire. If you want to get Political gains, do it through negotiation and mediation, not terror.
...what has this world come to.
Yoepus
A friend is someone who will help you move. A real friend is someone who will help you move a body. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
Good post Inspector Morse.
It all really is indeed very pointless... but what can you do?? One side values life, the other values taking it away. They leave the Israelis with no choice and this saddens me.
It fustrates me to hear every time a Palestinian dies...(not the militants of course, have no sympathy for them) I think to myself how sad, if only they could have uprised against their dictator and made themselves into a democracy the whole region would be peaceful and prospering again.
The only reason I propose a harsh break-down and re-occupation if need of the territories is because I genuinely believe more lives on both sides will be saved. Look in history the longer the conflict, the more people die. The shorter you end it, the more time you have to rebuilt and create a peaceful society. History doesn't lie, look at it.
Yoepus
The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible. |
|
|
|
|
